Special Interview Israel Didn’t Ask for U.S. Troops

Israel’s Consul General in New York, Naphtali Lavie, said that Israel never requested the formation of a temporary multinational force in Lebanon nor the dispatch of U.S. marines to the area.

But he said that once the suggestion had been put forward, his country was willing to consider it as a means to remove the PLO from Beirut and to help restore authority to the Lebanese government.

“Israel did not ask for American troops or for a multinational force,” Lavie said in an interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “This is something that should be known.” He referred in this context to a statement he said an Egyptian source attributed to Egypt’s Foreign Minister Kamal Hassan Ali, asserting that the PLO had requested the American intervention.

“It came up because the idea of a multinational force came up, and the next thing was that the Egyptian said the PLO was interested in having Americans,” Lavie said. He suggested that the PLO may have sought direct U.S. military involvement “as a way to get in the Americans through the back door, as possible partners, and in a way, by implication, to get American recognition for the PLO.”

At the same time, however, the Consul General stressed that an American presence was “very important” to Israel, and accused the PLO of exploiting his country’s good will by using the negotiations as a means of stalling for time.

CITES ISRAEL’S INTENTIONS

The Consul General insisted that Israel had not intended to encircle Beirut at the start of its operation, or to pursue the removal of the PLO’s political presence in Lebanon. But he said that once Israel was confronted with Syrian air and ground attacks in the east and stiff Palestinian resistance from the west, his country’s forces were compelled to push forward on both flanks, in order to solidify the positions they had already established.

Once they had closed in on southwest Beirut, where the PLO has its headquarters, Lavie said, it became clear that Israel’s initial goal of establishing a cordon sanitaire in the 40-kilometer zone near the southern border could only be achieved by removing the entire PLO presence from Lebanon.

“We had no intentions whatsoever to enter the city of Beirut because we did not want to confront any civilian population,” Lavie said. But he added that “militarily speaking, we could do it easily.”

He assessed the possibility of a continued PLO political presence in Beirut as unlikely. “For them,” he suggested, “political presence means that it is built or based on military threats or terror threats. Without being in the possession of an army or terror organization, their political entity is nil, is nothing.” But Lavie declined to speculate on the possibility of an eventual compromise by which the PLO would evacuate Beirut, leaving behind a token political office. “It is up to the Israeli Government to make this decision,” he said.

Noting a recent Gallup poll, Lavie maintained that the American public supports Israel’s action in Lebanon. But he expressed regret over Jewish participation in demonstrations and newspaper advertisements opposing the operation, saying it “plays into the hands of the PLO.” About public Israeli opposition, however, he was less critical.

“You know what? I am proud that Israelis feel free, in a democratic society to speak up about what they feel. It only proves the true character of the State of Israel and its people.” But he suggested that “the people (who demonstrate in Israel) maybe don’t know the facts” about past Israeli peace gestures to the Palestinians and the futility of attempting to deal with the PLO. He also noted that recent polls in two of Israel’s news dailies indicate wide support for the Government’s operation.

CREDIBILITY OF ISRAEL’S POSITION

Asked to comment on recent criticism of Israel’s public relations performance by Howard Squadron, former chairman of the conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Lavie challenged Squadron’s assertion that Israel responded too slowly to exaggerated reports of civilian casualties.

He maintained that Israel publicized its own figures as soon as they could be obtained, first based on hospital registration and then, when its forces were able to clear through the rubble of Sidon, and other areas in the south, on their own investigation.

“The strength of Israel’s position is its credibility,” Lavie said. “How could you imagine an Israeli official — the most reliable, the most articulate one — going in on the second or third or fourth day of the war and give you a real number, a real figure that would be credible.” He noted that the International Red Cross in Geneva has dissociated itself from the casualty figures presented by the Red Crescent in Beirut, which has since reduced its own figures of killed and wounded.